Philips & Butler v. Rose
8 Johns. 392
Opinion
This case falls precisely within that of Little v. Holland, in the K. B. (3 Term Rep. 590.) The contract must be proved, as it is laid, otherwise the defendant has no notice of what he is called upon to answer. Evidence that the contract was enlarged by parol agreement, will not support the declaration.
Judgment of nonsuit.
See Keating v. Price, (1 Johns. Cas. 23.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Philips & Butler v. Rose, 8 Johns. 392 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).
8 Johns. 392 (Philips & Butler v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Bignall Hardware Co.
102 Ill. App. 68 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Daley v. Russ
24 P. 867 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Fullager v. Reville
6 Thomp. & Cook 295 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Smith v. Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad
36 N.H. 458 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1858)
Warren v. Bean
6 Wis. 120 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1858)
French v. New
20 Barb. 481 (New York Supreme Court, 1855)
Holmes v. . Holmes
9 N.Y. 525 (New York Court of Appeals, 1854)
Esmond v. Van Benschoten
12 Barb. 366 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Sandford v. Halsey
2 Denio 235 (New York Supreme Court, 1845)
Jordan v. Cooper
3 Serg. & Rawle 564 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1817)